Correction to 'The relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size'.

Abstract

You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Tosh Colin R. and McNally Luke 2015Correction to ‘The relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size’Proc. R. Soc. B.2822015112420151124http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1124SectionYou have accessCorrectionCorrection to ‘The relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size’ Colin R. Tosh Colin R. Tosh Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Luke McNally Luke McNally Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Colin R. Tosh Colin R. Tosh Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Luke McNally Luke McNally Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:22 August 2015https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1124This article corrects the followingResearch ArticleThe relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different sizehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2568 Colin R. Tosh and Luke McNally volume 282issue 1802Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences07 March 2015Proc. R. Soc. B282, 20142568 (2015; Published online 28 January 2015) (doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2568)The purpose of this short article is to detail an error in the data represented in fig. 7 of [1]. In error, a constant value of connective density rather than a relative value was used in models across most of the network size range in the SNMN networks shown as green in figure 7. The unusual dynamics shown by green line in figure 7 is a consequence of this coding error and the correct line is similar to that of the blue PMN networks. A corrected figure 7 is included here.This parameter is correctly scaled in all data within figs. 1–6 of [1] in which only network sizes of 16 × 8 × 1 and 96 × 48 × 1 are considered: the probability of connection between nodes in the input and hidden layers is 0.5 in the 16 × 8 × 1 network and 0.083 in the 96 × 48 × 1 network. The error does not, therefore, affect the main results or conclusions of the paper (that the relative benefits of modularity are quite different in small and large networks). We refer to the artefactual dynamic in a few places in the manuscript, namely: lines 10–14 of the abstract; the last paragraph of the results section and paragraph two of the discussion. Essentially, arguments made in the paper to the effect that modularity may also be favoured in smaller networks when connective density must be kept low (the second paragraph of our discussion) are invalid.The responsibility for this error is principally with C.R.T. as he was responsible for writing and debugging code used to produce this output. Figure 7. Networks conformed as networks in state 1 (figure 6) with simulations run on networks of different size with a smaller number of replicates at each size. Diamonds are raw fitness values for each simulation run and lines join means of these points. The ratios on the horizontal axis refer to the number of nodes in the input and hidden layers, respectively. All networks had a single output node. Networks of each type (red, blue and green) are offset on the horizontal axis by 0.2 to allow visualization of points. (Online version in colour.)Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointFootnotes© 2015 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.ReferencesReference1Tosh CR, McNally L. 2015The relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142568. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2568) Link, ISI, Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Tosh C (2016) Can computational efficiency alone drive the evolution of modularity in neural networks?, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/srep31982, 6:1, Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016. Related articlesThe relative efficiency of modular and non-modular networks of different size07 March 2015Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This Issue22 August 2015Volume 282Issue 1813 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1124PubMed:26269499Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Published online22/08/2015Published in print22/08/2015 License:© 2015 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Citations and impact Subjectscomputational biology Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad